Sitting of 17 May 1830

MINUTES.
Lord PALMERSTON, as Chairman of the Rye Election Committee, reported to the House that Philip Pusey, Esq. was not elected for that Borough, and ought not to have been returned, and that Colonel De Lacy Evans had been duly elected, and ought to have been returned. The Deputy Clerk of the Crown ordered to attend and amend the Return. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER brought in a Bill to authorise the issue of a certain Sum in Exchequer Bills, for the purpose of paying off those persons who had dissented to the conversion of Four per Cent Stock into a Stock of another denomination, which was read a first time. The Parish Watching and Lighting Bill was read a third time and passed.
Petitions presented. Against the increase of Stamp Duties on Newspapers, by Mr. H. HUTCHINSON, from the Inhabitants of Cork; and from the Letter-press Printers of Cork:—By Mr. HUSKISSON, from the Letter-press Printers of Liverpool:—By the Earl of BELFAST, from the Inhabitants of Belfast:—By Mr. RICKFORD, from the Inhabitants of Cashell:—By Mr. COOTE, from the Inhabitants of Clonmel:—And by Captain WEMYSS, from the Inhabitants of Forfarshire. For the improvement of the Law relative to Landlord and Tenant, by Mr. OTWAY CAVE, from Leicester. For the Abolition of Slavery, by Lord MILTON, from Protestant Dissenters at Stainland. Against the Sale of Beer Bill, by Lord CLIVE, from the Magistrates of Ludlow. Against the Truck System, by praying that nothing might be done to make paying Rent by Instalments illegal, by Lord STANLEY, from the Cotton Spinners of Manchester. In favour of the Emancipation of the Jews, by Mr. P. THOMSON, from the Freeholders and Inhabitants of Margate:—By Mr. HUME, from Uxbridge:—By Sir H. PARNELL, from Canterbury:—By Lord MILTON, from Sheffield and its Vicinity:—By Mr. C. CAVENDISH, from Clergymen and Members of the Established Church at Cambridge:—By Mr. B. CARTER, from a great number of respectable Inhabitants of Portsmouth:—By Mr. LAWLEY, from Birmingham:—By Sir G. PHILLIPS, from Manchester:—By Mr. RUMBOLD, from Great Yarmouth:—By Sir R. WILSON, from Norwood, Surrey:—By Mr. O'CONNELL, from Clontarf, near Dublin; and from certain Inhabitants of Dublin:—By Mr. BENETT, from the Inhabitants of Warminster and Woolwich:—By Mr. MARSHALL, from Lewis:—And by Mr. PENDARVIS, from Falmouth. Against the renewal of the East India Company's Charter, by Mr. H. CAVENDISH, from New Mills, Peafield, and Glossop:—And by Captain WEMYSS, From Forfarshire. Against the Punishment of
760
Death for Forgery, by Lord STANLEY, from the Chamber of Commerce of Manchester:—And by Mr. O. CAVE, from Leicester. Complaining of Distress, by Mr. BROWNLOW, from a Society for the Improvement of Ireland. For the amendment of the Marriage Laws, by Mr. O. CAVE, from Chichester. Against the practice of Imprisonment for Debt, by Lord ALTHORP, from Joseph Townshend Holman. In favour of the Liability of Landlords Bill, by Mr. LAWLEY, from the Overseers of Coleshill:—And by Lord STANLRY, from the Overseers of Barton-upon-Irwell. Against allowing the use of Machinery, by Mr. LIDDELL, from the Journeymen Paper-makers of Durham. Against the proposed alteration in the Spirit Duties, by Mr. JEPHSON, from the Inhabitants of Drisbane:—By Captain WEMYSS, from the Landed Proprietors of Berwick and Forfarshire:—And by Sir J. SEBRIGHT, from the Landowners of Royston. Against the Administration of Justice Bill, by Mr. HUSKISSON, from the Attornies of Liverpool:—And by Mr. LAWLEY, from the Chamber of Commerce, Birmingham. Against allowing Tobacco to be Cultivated in the United Kingdom, by Mr. HUSKISSON, from the Tobacco Manufacturers of Liverpool. For Parliamentary Reform, by Mr. O'CONNELL, from the London Association of Radical Reformers.

STAMPS—IRELAND.
Mr. P. Thomsonpresented a Petition from a number of Newspaper Proprietors in Ireland, praying that no additional duty might be laid on Newspaper Stamps in that country. The petitioners stated, that if such a measure were resorted to, the revenue, instead of being increased, would be reduced to little more than one-half of its present amount. That, however, appeared to be the least important part of the subject, for he believed that an additional impost would strike at once at the root of the whole newspaper press of Ireland; and, in his opinion, the existence of such a press was, to a country placed in the situation of I re-land, of the utmost importance. He thought that the press of Ireland, in making known abuses, was most advantageous to the people of that country, and therefore he should oppose any measure that was likely to be prejudicial to it. It appeared to him that the Irish press had been greatly instrumental in effecting the all-important measure which had recently been sanctioned by the Legislature,—a measure which, more than any other, was calculated to restore and to preserve peace and tranquillity in Ireland. He had himself no connexion with that country, and he supposed that the petitioners would have intrusted their petition to some hon. Irish Member, who might have done it more justice than he could, if they had not thought that the proposition which they opposed ought to be looked to as a general measure—as a measure not confined to Ireland, but one which would affect the whole of the United Kingdom.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, he had been Requested to support the prayer of this pe-

761
tition, which he would do most willingly. He wished to call the serious and anxious attention of the House to the subject to which the petition referred, and which was, to Ireland, of first-rate importance. He would not dilate on the question, but he would state this proposition, which he knew could not be controverted—namely, that if revenue were the object of the proposed increase of the tax on Newspapers in Ireland, that object would be wholly defeated; but if the extinction of Irish newspapers were contemplated, that project must succeed if the tax were persevered in. It would diminish nearly one-half of the present Revenue, if the Irish Stamp-duties were assimilated to those of England. It might be thought proper, as Ireland was at present governed, to silence totally the voice of the people there, but for his own part, he believed that such was the real object; and if it were not, he did not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer could possibly proceed with the measure.
Mr. G. Mooreobserved, that he also was requested to support the prayer of the petition; and he would say that, no measure was more likely than that now proposed to destroy the press of Ireland—no project could possibly have a greater tendency to produce that effect. It would at the same time not only injure the Revenue derived from newspapers, but it would materially lessen the Revenue which flowed from other sources connected with the newspaper press.
Mr. J. Grattansaid, the proposed assimilation of Stamp-duties was a very harsh and unfair proceeding towards the press of Ireland, and he trusted that Ministers would not force it on that country. In the course of the last year the newspaper press of Ireland had taken a tone which was calculated to do much good, by preserving peace and harmony in the country. He very much doubted if the measure of the right hon. Gentleman would produce any accession of revenue, and, in other respects he was quite certain that it would operate mischievously.
Sir J. Newportsaid, he had very serious doubts as to this measure being of such a nature as to produce any other effects, except loss of revenue, discontent, and dissatisfaction; and therefore he wished to impress on the House the extreme importance of the subject. The existence of the press of Ireland was very important to the welfare of that country, So far from its
762
being just or proper that the duties on newspapers should be raised, they ought, in his opinion, to be diminished, both in England and Ireland. It was quite evident, that if the tax were raised, it would have the effect, in a great measure, of closing the door against the expression of public opinion; and it was most important that no barrier should be set up to prevent individuals from canvassing and giving their judgment on the conduct of public men. It was his intention, when the Stamp-duties Bill was going into committee, to move that it be an instruction to the committee to introduce a clause for reducing the duty on Newspaper stamps and advertisements, both in England and Ireland, to one-half its present amount. If there were one object more important than another in the government of a state, it was, that the people at large should be made acquainted with the conduct of public men, and that public men should be made acquainted with the sentiments of the people, which could only be accomplished by giving increased facility to the diffusion of general information.
Sir H. Parnellstrongly objected to any additional duty on newspapers; and the placing of a heavier duty on the Irish press would, in his opinion, be especially mischievous. It would have the effect of checking the habit of reading, the encouragement of which would do much to tranquillize Ireland. He was sure, that at present, a great deal of evil originated in the non-existence of the habit of reading amongst the lower classes in that country.
Petition to be printed.

TRANSMISSION OF BULLION.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, he was about to present a Petition of very considerable importance, on which he begged leave to say a very few words, and he trusted that his right hon. friend near him would favour him with his attention while he did so. The subject to which the petition related was of great consequence to those merchants who carried on trade with South America and other parts of the world, and who were obliged to import large quantities of Bullion. The petitioners stated the great loss and injury to which the trade was exposed, in consequence of the high rate of freight charged by King's ships and Government packets, whenever, for safety, Bullion was sent home in these vessels. By an order

763
in Council, King's ships and Government packets were allowed to bring home the precious metals, and the captains of them were empowered to charge two per cent upon Silver and Gold sent to this country from the Mediterranean and South America. The petitioners complained that this tax of two per cent took away a very considerable portions of their profits; and they further observed, that in the event of such ships being employed to carry Bullion for the King's service, only one per cent was charged, although, in each instance, the responsibility was the same. Now, why there should be a double charge on the merchant, as compared with the public, he could not understand. Not long since, one of these vessels went from Vera Cruz to one of our colonies, with thirteen tons of Silver, or about 120,000 l.; on this the commander received at the rate of two per cent, or 2,400 l. for taking charge of that treasure during thirteen days. The carriers, it appeared, were likely to make much larger profits than the merchants, who were obliged to run all the risk of bringing this silver into the country. Now he contended, and he could prove to his right hon. friend, that these packets were not better manned, or better found, in any respect, than the packets were formerly, before they were taken from the Post-office and placed under the jurisdiction of the Admiralty; and at that time only one per cent was charged. He did think that it was not right, when those packets were removed from the Post-office department, and placed under the directions of the Admiralty, that an additional duty of one per cent should be charged to those who dealt in this species of merchandise. But that was not all. According to the Order in Council, if one of those vessels carried Bullion from Colombia to any of the neighbouring Islands,—a sail of not perhaps more than thirty or forty hours,—a charge was made of 1½ per cent; and therefore, when it arrived in this country, the charge was between three and four per cent. He contended, that if one per cent only was paid by the public, no more ought to be exacted from the merchant, That certainly would be a very ample remuneration for the Lieutenants commanding these packets; but it was preposterous that 50 l. or 60 l. a day should be given to those individuals for taking charge of this treasure. He did think that that House ought to interpose, as far as its
764
power permitted, to amend this system. The situation of this country, and of the different States of the world, was such, that we ought to give every possible facility to trade, and remove, to the utmost extent of our ability, all the impediments which stood in the way of commerce, otherwise we should lose those openings for the disposal of our manufactures which it was so important that we should turn to our advantage. He hoped that his right hon. friend would take the subject into his consideration, and that, in future, the same rate of freight which was now paid by the public for the transmission of treasure would be charged to private individuals who imported the precious metals into this country. There was nothing of greater importance to our connexion with South America than that of lowering, as far as possible, the duty on that article which formed the chief medium by which their commercial dealings were carried on—he meant the produce of the South American mines. By doing so, the Legislature would give increased facilities to a reduction of the value of those materials of which money was made.
The Petition of the Merchants of London engaged in the trade with the West-India Islands and South America, was read and laid on the Table.

NATIONAL DISTRESS.
Mr. Alderman Woodpresented a Petition from the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Livery of London, in Common Hall assembled, complaining of Distress, and praying for a reduction of the Public Expenditure, and a Reform of Parliament. The hon. Alderman stated that the petition was unanimously agreed to by the meeting at which it originated. One of the prayers of the Petition was for a reduction of the salaries of officers of Government, in proportion to the advance that had taken place in these emoluments since the year 1792, in consequence of the high price of provisions: it was now sought to reduce those salaries, on the ground that the cost of the necessaries of life was considerably diminished. A resolution was passed by the meeting, directing him (as senior Representative) to bring forward a proposition for such a reduction; but until the returns of the emoluments of public officers (ordered the other evening) should be laid upon the Table, it would be premature to introduce the subject.
Mr. Alderman Thompsonsaid, that he

765
concurred with the statements contained in the petition on the subject of distress; for, notwithstanding there was a considerable improvement in the manufacturing and commercial interests, the retail traders had not benefitted in proportion. It rested with his hon. colleague to bring forward the subject that had been alluded to: when he did, the motion should have his support. He thought that such great towns Manchester and Birmingham ought to be represented in Parliament, and he was determined to support any motion which had that for its object.
Mr. Wardalso supported the petition. He thought that giving Representatives to the large towns would strengthen, not endanger, the Constitution.
Mr. Humewould be happy to see the City of London begin that reform at home which she demanded in the House of Commons: when she should have admitted all her own citizens to equal privileges, she could come before the House and urge the request with a better grace.
Mr. Heathcotewished that the retail dealers of the City would reform their prices, for although wholesale prices were diminished, there was not a proportionate reduction in retail prices. Taxes had been taken oft', but still retail prices were kept up in a way that was quite abominable.
Mr. Alderman Woodsaid, it had been carried in a Court of Common Council, on Friday last, that Jews be considered eligible to become freemen of the City, on taking the freemen's oath, according to the forms of their own religion. There was a majority of fifty-four to twenty-seven in favour of the proposition. As to retail prices, he could not agree with the hon. Member who complained of their extravagance. There was competition enough to keep them down, and they were kept down accordingly. The fact was, that retail traders suffered so much from the general distress as to be obliged frequently to sell at a loss. It was true, the Leather-tax had been taken off, and some persons imagined that the price of shoes was not lowered in proportion to the reduction in the price of leather; but he could show his hon. friend places where he might buy boots at a sufficiently low price—at from 14 s. or 15 s. to 25 s.—He was ready to take his hon. friend a ride through London, whenever he pleased, and show him cheap shops enough.

POOR LAWS (IRELAND).
Mr. Frenchpresented a Petition from the county of Roscommon, against the introduction of Poor-laws into Ireland.
Mr. Grattansaid, that there were efforts made in many parts of Ireland to get up petitions against the introduction of Poor-laws. He believed also, that the committee sitting up-stairs on the subject were directing their attention to make out a case against the applicability of Poor-laws to Ireland. The fact was, that some counties in Ireland did not pay much to support their poor, and did not like to be compelled to it; while other counties—such as Wicklow—supported all their Poor. His desire, in getting Poor-laws, was to equalise the charge. He was sorry that his hon. friend (Mr. S. Rice), the Chairman of the committee on this subject, was not in his place, as he would be able to inform the House what progress the committee had made in its inquiries.
Lord Althorp, in the absence of the hon. member for Limerick, assured the hon. Gentleman that the committee was inquiring into the question impartially.
Sir J. Newportsaid, persons both for and against the introduction of Poor-laws in Ireland had been examined before the committee. Within the last few days a gentleman was examined who had gone over to Ireland to inquire into the land-revenue of the Crown in that country, and who remained there a considerable time. This individual stated, that he went over to Ireland friendly, from what he had heard and read, to the introduction of Poor-laws; but he was now of a decidedly contrary opinion, after having been in some of the wildest parts of the country, and where there was the greatest number of paupers. So far from promoting the interests of the poor, this gentleman thought such a system would be highly injurious to them; and that instead of preventing or diminishing, it would augment the influx of Irish labourers into this country.
Mr. Moncksaid, that every nation had found it necessary to make some provision for the poor, in order to prevent vagrancy and mendicity; and he was sure that Ireland, where both prevailed to such an alarming extent, must sooner or later do the same. There was at present no means of distinguishing between the really distressed and those who were only idle, and asylums supported by the county, in which those who were able to work, but chose to

767
beg should be made to work, and those who were unable might be provided for, would be of great utility.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the Act for establishing such asylums in Ireland, had contributed to make many people rich, but it did not relieve the poor. That some measure ought instantly to be adopted he was however convinced; nothing could be more frightful and horrible than the state of the poor in Ireland. No less than 8,000 persons in Dublin were without the means of support. Disease must follow upon famine, and then the rich as well as the poor would suffer. He had always advocated the principle of the Poor-laws his only difficulty was, in what way they should be applied.
Mr. Trantcomplained, that in the formation of the Committee on this subject the name of the Gentleman who had first brought it forward was omitted. The names of Gentlemen who formed committees were read so rapidly, that no one had time to object to any of them, or to add others. He should bring forward a motion, rendering it necessary that the names of the Gentlemen, whom it was intended to appoint on Committees, should be before the House a reasonable time before the appointments took place.
The Petition to be printed.

PETITIONS IN FAVOUR OF THE JEWS.
Sir R. Wilsonsaid, he had to present a Petition, most numerously and respectably signed, from the Borough of Southwark, in favour of the Jews. In that borough, the first battle was fought and the first triumph obtained in favour of the Catholics and Dissenters at the last general election; the inhabitants of that borough now asked that the Jews might be allowed to possess the same rights as themselves.
The Solicitor Generalsaid, that he had presented a petition, on a former night, from a gentleman named Levi, and that he had then stated what the petitioner represented to be the sentiments of the Jews upon the measure which had lately been brought in. Mr. Levi had since publicly disclaimed those sentiments. He begged to say that he knew nothing of Mr. Levi. He had received the petition from Mr. Bicknell, solicitor to Greenwich Hospital. He rose now merely to state the authority upon which he had made the representation he had given to the House—namely, that the Jews did not wish for seats in Parlia-
768
ment, but merely to enjoy the rights of property. The learned Gentleman then read a letter from Mr. Bicknell, saying, that Mr. Levi requested him to state that neither he nor any of the Jews with whom he had conversed desired any elective franchise—they wished only for security to their property. He therefore had made the statement to the House on the authority of Mr. Bicknell.
Mr. Broughambegged to know, merely out of curiosity, who this Mr. Levi was who took upon himself to answer for all his brethren, and to say that they wanted neither elective franchise nor seats in Parliament. He had never heard of him before, but that perhaps only argued himself unknown.
Sir R. Wilsonsaid, that the Jews already exercised the elective franchise, whether by law or not; certain it was that they had that franchise practically, for they exercised it.
The Solicitor Generalsaid, that if the Jews were in the practical enjoyment of the elective franchise, one of their complaints fell to the ground. As to who Mr. Levi was, he had already said he knew nothing about him.
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, he could hardly suppose his learned friend, the Solicitor General, to be serious, when he said that the practical enjoyment of a right ought to satisfy men. Such an enjoyment was liable to be disputed, and would, of course, be disputed where the vote was of any importance. No rational man, surely, could be satisfied with this.
Lord Killeen, in presenting a Petition from certain Catholics of Ireland, in favour of the Jews, stated, that he had great pleasure in expressing his concurrence with the petitioners.
Mr. Martin, in presenting a similar Petition from Roman Catholic gentry of the county and city of Worcester, observed, that the petitioners expressed their gratitude for the measure of last Session, by which they were restored to their rights, and thought they could not display that gratitude in any better way than in petitioning for the extension of those rights to their fellow-subjects, the Jews. He hoped this petition would have, at least, the effect of proving that they who had been stamped as bigots did not really deserve that character: and he begged to say that he heartily concurred in the views which the petitioners had taken of this subject.
Mr. Protheroesaid, that he could bear testimony to the disposition of the Roman Catholics, in that part of the country with which he was connected, to extend to others that civil and religious liberty which they themselves had recently obtained.

PETITION IN FAVOUR OF THE JEWS.
Mr. A. Baringsaid, that he had to present to the House a Petition from the Merchants, Bankers, Traders, and other inhabitants of the city of London, in favour of the Bill for the admission of Jews to an equal participation of civil rights with other British subjects, to which he was anxious to call the attention of the House. As the subject would be brought under full discussion that evening, it was not his intention to take up the time of the House by any lengthened remarks, yet he should not do justice to the petitioners if he did not state who they were, for the purpose of making the House aware of the importance which ought to be attached to their Petition. It was signed by upwards of 14,000 persons; and, including a large number of the bankers, and a large proportion of the most respectable commercial houses in the city, and of other respectable individuals, it might be said to contain as large a number of signatures as had ever been placed to any petition from London presented to that House. There were signed to it the names of 2,600 merchants, twenty-seven bankers, eleven Bank-directors, 1,100 doctors of medicine and other medical practitioners, 500 attornies, and if the names of no barristers were affixed, it was because they had chosen to present a petition from their own body, which he understood would be presented by his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Brougham). It was therefore a most important testimonial in favour of the Jews, because it was from the great body of those amongst whom they resided; who, however they might differ amongst themselves in opinions upon other points, were agreed in this—that from their habits and conduct as British subjects, the Jews had a strong claim to admission to equal rights with others. Of the Jews dwelling in this country there were 18,000 resident in London; and it was, he repeated, a high testimony in their favour that those to whom they were so well known should come forward in this public manner on their behalf. It was a proof of the good-will borne by them to
770
their Christian fellow-subjects, and by the latter towards them. From his own knowledge of that people, he could state, that so far were they from feeling themselves a class or nation with interests different from those amongst whom they resided, that there was nothing of a public nature for promoting the general good, for extending the blessings of education, and other means of national improvement, in which they did not lake as prominent a part as their Christian fellow-subjects; that this was the general feeling of their Christian friends, was proved by this fact—that though every publicity was given to the Bill intended for their relief, there was not one instance of a petition having been presented from any quarter against it. He did not look upon the measure before the House as one of general policy, so much as an act of substantial justice to a portion of our citizens, against whom nothing whatever could be proved to warrant their exclusion from the participation of equal rights with their fellow-subjects. In giving its sanction to such a bill, he was sure the House would act in perfect accordance with the feelings and wishes of the country. He moved that the Petition be brought up.
General Gascoynedid not rise to object to the Petition being brought up, though he owned that he was decidedly hostile to its prayer. It was said, that there were no petitions from any part of the country against the Bill; but the reason was, because the people did not believe that the House had any serious notion of carrying it; for if they had, no doubt the petitions against it would have been numerous enough before now. Hon. Members seemed now to attach great importance to petitions from the city of London and other places; but when petitions from those places were presented last year on another subject, they were not received with the same cordiality or respect; on the contrary, they were said to be the result of ignorance and bigotry. He would not, however, enter further into the subject; except to remark, in reference to what had been stated by a noble Lord, namely, that he should be able to prove that the admission of the Jews to equal rights would promote Christianity, that he should be glad to hear the noble Lord's proofs, and he had no doubt that he should derive much information from his discussion of the subject: but he would find

771
the task which he had imposed on himself one of some difficulty.
Mr. O'Connellobserved, that what the noble Lord said was, that he should be able to show that the admission of the Jews to equal rights would promote the principle of Christianity; and he (Mr. O'Connell), who agreed in religious feelings with that noble Lord, agreed with him also in that principle. As to the opinions with respect to the petition presented last year, to which the hon. and gallant Member alluded, they were very different in their character from those presented in favour of the Jews. He would not say broadly that they were founded in ignorance, but they certainly betrayed a want of knowledge, and had some tinge of bigotry about them. He regretted that so many should have been presented to exclude a portion of the subjects of the realm from political power, on account of a difference in religious opinion; but he had the satisfaction to think that many by whom those petitions were signed had since found cause to alter their opinion, and had the candour to avow it.
A Member, whose name we could not learn, expressed his concurrence in the prayer of the Petition, and observed, that there was this difference between the petitions presented this year and the last—that this year they were all on one side. There seemed, as far as the House could yet judge, to be only one feeling amongst the people on the subject of the present Bill, and that was favourable to it. The hon. and gallant Member opposite thought it would be a difficult task to prove that the admission of the Jews would promote the principle of Christianity. Now he thought it would be a still more difficult task to show that that admission would be repugnant to Christian principles.
The Petition to be printed.
Mr. Broughamsaid, that he had a similar Petition to present from a very considerable number of highly respectable individuals in the metropolis professing the Christian religion. Amongst the signatures were the names of 150 barristers, including some of the most distinguished men in the profession, not of one court, but of practitioners in all the courts,—not of one sect of Christians, but of Protestants, Dissenters, and some of the most respectable Roman Catholic members of the bar. Among them were to be found, Mr. Den-man, Mr. Treslove, Mr. Broderip, Mr. Al-
772
derson, Mr. Amos, Mr. Harrison, and many other distinguished men who, though they disagreed upon many political questions, were all unanimous upon this question of the admission of the Jews. He had now mentioned the names of several of his learned friends who signed the Petition; and, at the risk of drawing upon them the indignation of the hon. and gallant General, he would relate what it was they stated to the House—indeed it was the whole substance of the Petition,—"That your petitioners are of opinion that disqualifications for civil offices on account of religious opinions are repugnant to the benevolent principles of Christianity, and injurious to the strength and security of Government." They therefore prayed the House that the Bill now before it might pass. In this prayer he most cordially concurred, and he hoped the House would be of the same opinion.
Mr. N. Calvertsaid, that he was always friendly to the principle of religious toleration, and he therefore did not object to the bill before the House, as far as it went; but he thought it did not go far enough. He had some difficulty in giving his assent to a measure which admitted Jews to equal privileges, while it left still excluded from the same privileges a considerable body of Christians.—He alluded to the members of the Society of Friends, who, though professing Christianity, were excluded from civil offices. That the claims of that body were as just as those of any others in the community, it was hardly necessary for him to attempt to prove. He believed it would be admitted, that in individual character and respectability they were not exceeded by any other class of men. In their endeavours to promote the welfare of their fellow men, and in their general attachment to civil and religious liberty, they were conspicuous amongst their countrymen; they were, therefore, as fit objects of admission to equal rights as any class of men in the community. It might perhaps be said, that they did not petition for those rights; that might be true, and he admitted that they were an unambitious people, but that did not hinder the application of the principle, for he thought that, with the admission of it in the case of the Jews, it would be a disgrace to the legislature to continue the exclusion of the Quakers.
Mr. Broughamagreed that it would be wrong to mark their disposition in

773
favour of the admission of the Jews by the exclusion of Quakers; but there was no necessity for it. The ready way to get out of the difficulty would be to include the Quakers also. If his hon. friend objected to the admission of the Jews because the Quakers were not also included, then he had been somewhat inconsistent in the votes he gave on other subjects for extending religious toleration. On the same principle he ought, when the bill for the relief of the Dissenters was before the House, to have objected to it because it did not include the Catholics; and afterwards, to the second great measure, because it had not included all other parties who, up to that time, were not admissible. There was, he would admit, a difficulty in admitting Jews to equal rights, and continuing the exclusion of any sect of Christians; but he saw a way out of that difficulty by including the other party.
Mr. N. Calvertsaid, that it had been his intention to move, as an amendment to the measure before the House, to inquire how far oaths might be dispensed with as qualifications for civil offices, and for seats in Parliament. It appeared to him that a declaration would be equally binding on an honest man, but an oath would not bind a dishonest one where he could find means to violate it with impunity. He had, however, abandoned his intention of moving an amendment,—he had been so unfortunate in his amendments; they had been the means of so much trouble to himself and inconvenience to others, that he was not disposed to venture on one again in the present case. He thought, however, that it would be absurd and unjust to pass a measure for granting the full privileges of the Constitution to the Jews, and at the same time continue the exclusion of so deserving and meritorious a class of fellow Christians as the Quakers.
Mr. R. Grantsaid, after what had fallen from the hon. member for Hertfordshire with respect to the Quakers, he could entertain no doubt that it was his intention to bring in a bill for giving them the same civil rights as those now enjoyed by so many other Dissenters from the Church of England. On this subject he would only say, that whenever that measure came forward, it should have his cordial concurrence; and if the hon. Member would favour him with his vote in support of the bill for the Jews, he should be most happy
774
on any future occasion to lend his humble but most hearty co-operation in forwarding any bill which the hon. Member might introduce for extending the same principle to the members of the Society of Friends.

THE MAURITIUS.
Mr. OtwayCave presented a Petition from the inhabitants of Bassingbourne, Cambridge, for the abolition of Negro Slavery.
Sir G. Murrayhoped he might be allowed to avail himself of that opportunity of removing an erroneous impression as to what fell from him on Thursday last. In answer to a question put to him by an hon. friend, he was told he had been understood to have said that the increased production and exportation of sugar from the Mauritius arose from the great number of slaves illegally introduced into that colony. In this view of what he said he had been misunderstood. He had not attributed it to that circumstance. The illegal importation alluded to took place between the years 1814 and 1821; and the stimulus given to the increased growth of sugar was by the Act of 1825, which encouraged the cultivation of sugar where coffee had been grown before. It was also in a considerable degree to be attributed to the improvement in the machinery used, and to the application of the steam-engine. He was anxious to set himself right on this point, and he hoped that what he now said would remove the erroneous impression.
Petition to lie on the Table.

PARLIAMENTATY REFORM.
Mr. E. Davenportsaid, that he had the honour to present to the House a Petition, which, whether they considered the subject to which it referred, the place from whence it came, or the great number of signatures attached to it, would, he was sure, be admitted to be one of considerable importance. For himself, he had to entreat the indulgence of the House—the more particularly when he considered how many of those hon. Members by whom he was surrounded would have done the subject much greater justice than it was in his power to do it—while he entered into some few details connected with the topics to which the Petition referred. This Petition was from one of the greatest commercial towns in the world: it was signed by 25,000 of the inhabitants of that town, and it prayed for a Reform in the Com-

775
mons House of Parliament. The petitioners expressed the reluctance with which they approached the House on this occasion, after the rejection of their former prayer; and seeing with deep regret the apathy with which the House seemed to view the approach of poverty to their own threshholds, they stated, that they did not look with much confidence to the result of their present application. The petitioners differed from many Members of that House, when they stated, that in every well-regulated state the people ought to be in a prosperous condition where no external cause operated to prevent it; and finding themselves, in common with other classes of the community, in a state of distress after several years of peace, it was a proof that some mismanagement existed in the manner in which the country was governed. To the want of a Reform in the Commons House of Parliament they attributed much of that mismanagement of which they now complained. One of the first objects to which the petitioners wished to call the attention of the House, was the bill which passed in 1819, commonly called Mr. Peel's Bill, for an alteration in the Currency. When that measure was introduced, it was contended that the return to metallic payments would not make a difference of more than three or four per cent in prices; whereas it had the effect of increasing the burthens of the country to nearly double what they were, while the nominal amount of taxation remaining the same, the real amount taken from the pockets of the people was nearly twice as much as they paid in a paper currency. The petitioners therefore submitted that the amount of taxation should be greatly reduced to place the public in anything near the state in which they were before that bill came into full operation. But no such reduction had taken place; and this was one ground on which the petitioners asserted the necessity for Parliamentary Reform. The hon. member for Callington had stated, in 1827, that every kind of agricultural produce had fallen at the rate of thirty or thirty-three per cent, or that money had risen in value in that proportion since the passing of the right hon. Gentleman's Bill; the subsequent suppression of the small notes had occasioned a further rise in the value of money, to the extent, he believed, of twenty per cent, so that the whole extent of the change
776
could not have been less than fifty per cent. That the manufacturers of Birmingham had participated in the evil consequences resulting from this measure was sufficiently evident from the fall of price on twenty-six articles of their ware, a list of which he held in his hand, with the respective prices annexed. As the House appeared disinclined to listen to details, he would observe generally, that the fall of price between 1818 and 1828, might be estimated at about thirty-six per cent, while from the year 1828 up to the present period it amounted to at least twenty-two per cent added to that. He was sorry to observe, that he should be obliged to renew the complaint of the hon. member for Knaresborough, a few nights since, as several members near him were speaking in a louder tone than himself. Part of the prayer of the petitioners referred to the pressure of taxation, to relieve them from which nothing effectual had hitherto been done. It was a reproach to Parliament that the people should be oppressed with such an intolerable burthen at a period when 113 members of the Privy Council were permitted to share amongst them an income of 650,164 l. annually, leaving each, on an average, about 5,783 l. a-year, which, in fact, exceeded the revenue of a "sovereign" in North America. According to the present state of things, the humble followers of industry were habitually sacrificed to the receivers of taxes. The petitioners prayed for a considerable reduction of taxation and a thorough reform in the Commons' House of Parliament. The next subject to which he should refer more immediately concerned the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He alluded to what that right hon. Gentleman had stated with respect to the alleged prosperity of the town of Birmingham, in contradiction to the representations of those who had the best opportunities of obtaining local information. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that Birmingham was in a state of prosperity, and he had quoted, as proofs of this, the traffic on the roads and canals, and particularly the increase of traffic on the Worcester and Birmingham canal. The reason of this was, that the ship canal at Gloucester had rendered that almost a sea port, and increased the business on the Worcester and Birmingham canal. That canal had also obtained a larger supply of water, and an impediment to its communicating

777
with Birmingham had been removed, which sufficiently accounted for the increase of business, without supposing that Birmingham was flourishing. The hon. Member next referred to a statement of the right hon. Gentleman, that some ground rents had sold in Birmingham for 100 years' purchase. But the fact in this case was, that by the purchase the ground was converted into freehold, and by the purchase its value was considerably augmented. The value of the land was 3,500 l., while the purchaser gave only 500 l. for it, so that the right hon. Gentleman had done any thing but prove by that fact the prosperity of Birmingham. The right hon. Gentleman had also quoted the number of four-wheeled carriages in use in Birmingham, but he believed that the four-wheeled carriages referred to by the right hon. Gentleman were only poney-chaises, which the people had taken to use instead of gigs. The real four-wheeled carriages, such as gentlemen use, and such as were generally understood by the term, had increased, he believed, in Birmingham since 1818 about one-fortieth. In 1818 there were thirty-eight such carriages in Birmingham, and in 1828 there were thirty-nine. But a different sort of proof might be derived from the state of the poor in Birmingham. In the last year the outdoor poor had increased 445, and since 1818 they had increased full 1,400. [Some impatience was here again manifested.] The hon. Member observed, however impatient the Members were to give relief to the Jews, and however sorry he was to introduce such a subject as a sort of sandwich between two discussions on that question, yet perhaps they ought to think that some attention was due to the complaints and sufferings of 25,000 Christians. The hon. Member then adverted to the state of the iron-trade, and stated, that of the Staffordshire and Worcestershire furnaces no less than forty-five out of 107 had been blown out; while of the forty-five furnaces in Shropshire, fourteen had been blown out since 1828.
Mr. Trantrose to order. He must object to the hon. Member entering into so many statements on presenting a Petition [Cries of "Order!" and "Chair, Chair.!"]. The hon. Member might content himself with an impromptu speech on such a subject.
Mr. E. Davenport, in continuation, said, he did not know whether the hon. Mem-
778
ber's interruption were an impromptu suggestion or not, but a more disorderly one he had never witnessed in that House. He would then proceed to a topic on which he hoped he should have that hon. Member's support, since he had taken up his seat on that (the Opposition) side of the House. The petitioners prayed for Reform in Parliament, and in that he cordially concurred. He had been a Reformer since the time of the disgraceful expedition to Walcheren. The Parliament was not a fair representation of the people. As it was a selection from the mass, it ought to be better than the mass of the people; but it was not. He did not think it was a fair specimen of the average talent of England. If he threw a net across the Strand, he believed that the first 658 men he caught would constitute a House of Commons which would obtain the confidence of the people, and be more worthy of it than the present House of Commons. A Reform might be obtained on constitutional principles, which would satisfy him. He would have the Septennial Act repealed; and he cordially concurred with the petitioners in desiring to see the expenses of elections diminished; so that talents and character might have a fairer chance than at present against money. If any person should propose the vote by ballot, it should have his consent, not that he thought that mode of voting good of itself, but it would operate, in the present state of society, to check corruptive influence. Property ought, indeed, to have its legitimate influence; but at present it had a very unjust and improper influence, tending to control everything like freedom, and this influence might, probably, be corrected by the ballot. It was a statement of the petitioners that all the industrious classes were suffering greatly, because the money was taken out of their pockets to go into the pockets of the receivers of taxes, and they stated, that for all these evils there was no remedy but a Reform of Parliament. He called on the House to attend to the prayers of the petitioners in time, before the House lost the confidence of the people altogether, and before they took the means of Reform, and, perhaps, of avenging their own wrongs into their own hands. The Reform Meeting at Birmingham had been followed by similar meetings all over the country, and Reform was becoming a favourite topic with the people. For the rest he had never been slow to express his

779
opinion, either in that House or elsewhere, and he should still have the courage to do so without entertaining any apprehension that the societies he had alluded to would meet the fate of other societies across the water, or that he should be afflicted with the disease which went by the name of the "Scarlett" fever. The hon. Member concluded by moving that the Petition be brought up.
Secretary Sir Robert Peel* said, that he never was more surprised than by the speech of the hon. Member. The hon. Gentleman had informed him that he should state, in the course of his speech, on presenting the Petition, some facts in opposition to the statements which he (Sir Robert Peel) had made on a former occasion, when he had quoted various facts to show that Birmingham was not in that state of extreme and overwhelming distress, past all hopes of relief, that had been stated on several occasions. The hon. Member had been since that time getting information on the spot, and after all his local inquiries, what refutation had he given to his statements? He had stated on a former occasion, in reply to the hon. Member, that he would allow him to select what indications he pleased of increasing prosperity, and that he would leave the House to judge by the indications selected by him, whether or not Birmingham were in that state of distress described. He had then stated that there was an increased consumption of articles subject to Excise-duties, which argued no distress among the poor. He had also stated, that on all the turnpike roads about Birmingham there was a great increase of tolls, and that on every canal in the neighbourhood of Birmingham, there were proofs of an increased traffic; and the hon. Gentleman, leaving his statement as to the roads untouched—leaving unnoticed his proofs of increased consumption—had stated that there was in one single canal a large increase, which he ascribed to other causes than the increase of prosperity, and which, he said, were sufficient to account for the increase of traffic on the canal. But the hon. Member had by this confirmed his argument. He had not contradicted by facts, after all his inquiries, one single statement which he
* The Secretary for the Home-department appeared to-night, for the first time, in the House, subsequent to his father's death.
780
(Sir R. Peel) had formerly made to the House, to show that Birmingham was increasing in prosperity. The hon. Member proved by his admission, that there was an increase in the prosperity of Birmingham. The only other point to which the hon. Gentleman had adverted, was the increase of four-wheeled carriages. The hon. Gentleman had found out that the inhabitants of Birmingham had changed their gigs into four-wheeled pony chaises, which accounted, he thought, for the increase of four-wheeled carriages. He had quoted the increase of different kinds of carriages formerly, to show that the middle and lower classes had increased in comforts. Had he referred only to such carriages as were used by the rich, he should have been told that these were the luxuries of the rich, and that the poor were suffering. He had quoted the number of two-wheeled carriages, therefore, as well as the number of four-wheeled ones, because the two-wheeled ones—the gigs—were used by the lower and middle classes, and the increase in them showed that the lower and middle classes had increased their enjoyments—their comforts and luxuries. The hon. Gentleman said, that only one four-wheeled carriage had been added to the number in Birmingham for many years. He did not know where the hon. Gentleman got his information, but he could assure him that the returns in his possession showed a considerably larger increase. As he wished to quote no Returns not in the possession of every hon. Member, if the hon. Member would move for those in his possession he would second his Motion.
Mr. E. Davenportsaid, he would save him the trouble.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, he did not want to be saved the trouble. He wanted the hon. Member, and all other hon. Members who complained of the effects of that Bill which bore his name, and who continually stated that it had been productive of evil to the country—he wanted those hon. Members to hear the facts which disproved their assertions. He had stated on a former occasion, that the number both of two-wheeled and four-wheeled carriages had increased in Birmingham; and he had quoted that increase to show that the people had increased in comforts and luxuries, which he took to be an indication of increasing prosperity. In order to obtain, the information, he had applied to the Ex-

781
cise and to the Tax-office, and had required as full and accurate a Return as possible of all the carriages that paid taxes. There could be no higher authority than the Returns of the Excise and Tax-offices; and if their accounts of the number of four and two-wheeled carriages showed an increase in them, what better proof could be obtained of the increasing prosperity of Birmingham? He had not rested his proofs, however, on this alone. He was willing to admit that an increased revenue raised from the people, by an increase of taxation, was no proof of their increasing prosperity. But when he found, though the rate of taxation was not increased, though it was even diminished, that the revenue increased, was not that a proof that the people possessed an increased means of consumption—that they actually consumed more and were increasing in comfort? The hon. Member stated, that there was only one additional four-wheeled carriage in Birmingham for ten years: but this was a mistake; and he wished that the Returns he quoted were on the Table of the House, that every member might correct him if he made a misstatement. In 1819, then, the number of four-wheeled carriages in Birmingham was 38; in 1820, 38; in 1821, 38; in 1822, 44; in 1823, 55; in 1824, 68; in 1825, 94; in 1826, 106; in 1827, 137; in 1828, 157. Thus, since 1819, when the Bill was passed, which the hon. Gentleman said had ruined Birmingham—which the petitioners said had involved that town in bankruptcy, and made it unable to pay rates and taxes—[Mr. E. Davenport was understood to deny this. Sir Robert Peel said he had taken down the words of the Petition]—this Birmingham, which had been ruined by the Bill of 1819, had then only thirty-eight carriages, and in 1828 it had no less than 157. But the hon. Gentleman accounted for this by saying, that the people had converted all their gigs into four-wheeled pony chaises; that all the people who had kept a taxed cart and one horse, had changed their vehicles for a pony chaise. Now, if the hon. Member's statement was true, there ought to have been a great reduction of the number of two-wheeled carriages; that was the way the hon. Gentleman accounted for the increase of the four-wheeled carriages. But if the gigs had been so converted, the two-wheeled carriages must be put an end to; but the Returns by no means bore out the
782
statement of the hon. Gentleman. It appeared by them that the number of these vehicles in Birmingham, in 1819, was 301, and that from that time they had increased in regular progression, up to 1828, when they amounted to 470. The hon. Member stated that Birmingham was in such a state of distress that it could not pay rates and taxes; but he had no hesitation in saying that Birmingham paid its taxes and rates as well now as at any period. [Mr. E. Davenport was understood again to dissent from the statement about the taxes and rates.] It was said (continued Sir R. Peel) that by the Bill of 1819, Birmingham had been so much reduced, the hon. Gentleman had said it, that prices had been reduced 56-per-cent, while the burthen of taxation had been increased beyond the power of the people to pay, to the same amount. The hon. Member stated as a consequence of that Bill, that the inhabitants could not pay their rates and taxes; but he should be able to show that the rates and taxes were never levied there with greater ease than at present. He had a return of the arrears of rates at different years; from which it appeared, that those arrears amounted, in 1818, to 3,904 l.; in 1820, to 8,571 l.; and in 1829, to 1,031 l. He had a similar return also, as to the arrears of taxes, which he would read to the House.—In the year 1819, the amount of taxes assessed on Birmingham for the half-year, ending on the 5th of April, was 18,000 l.; of these taxes the amount paid was only 7,000 l., while the arrears were 11,000 l. In the year 1821 the arrears were 10,324 l. In the year 1823 they were 7,899 l., and in 1825, the year of prosperity, be it recollected, the arrears were 5,748 l. In 1828 they had fallen to 1,734 l., and last year they were only 2,522 l. Indeed he believed that there never had been less distress at any-period in Birmingham than at the present moment. The hon. Member had formerly-stated, that the consumption of butchers' meat in Birmingham had decreased one third; he knew not from what sources the hon. Gentleman derived his information on that subject; but he was certain that the statement of the consumption of meat being one third less than it had been was not supported by the fact. To shew that the condition of the working classes was not deteriorated, he would advert to the Returns connected with the Savings Bank. The total amount of money deposited there was about

783
50,000 l., and the total number of accounts actually opened was 3,547. In the last month the amount of money taken out was l,252 l. and the amount paid in, 2,403 l., leaving a balance of 1,150 l., money paid into the Savings Bank. But this was not all. The payments of every kind on every article of taxation had received a sensible increase. The taxes had increased on "window's, on houses, on servants, on horses, on carriages, and on dogs, indeed on every article of luxury, enjoyment, or necessity, except two, and he would give the hon. Member the full benefit to be derived from them: they were the taxes on horse-dealers and hair-powder. He thought it unnecessary to pursue this subject further. The hon. Member had not been able to impugn any of the statements he had formerly put forth; and having therefore shown that the situation of the population of Birmingham was not such as he represented, he should not trouble the House with any further details.
Mr. Robinsonsaid, he could not agree with the right hon. Baronet in the conclusion he drew from these statements, and he protested against the system of answering all complaints on such subjects, by reading a few isolated and unauthenticated documents. He knew, however, in defiance of these documents, that the families receiving parochial relief in the town of Birmingham had increased from 2,469 in 1826, to 3,878 in 1830, and that there was an increase of distress in that town, to the amount of at least fifty per cent, since the year 1826. He feared it would be found, even if he admitted the correctness of the right hon. Baronet's statements, that the comforts of the poor were diminishing, as the luxuries of the rich were increasing, and that the want of employment was severely felt, notwithstanding all the boasts of prosperity.
Mr. E. D. Davenport, in reply, said, the only conclusion to be drawn from the right hon. Gentleman's statements was, that the 25,000 petitioners had put their signatures to a string of falsehoods. He denied, however, that the right hon. Gentleman had disproved any portion of them, although he admitted that he was mistaken in that part of the argument which related to the consumption of butchers' meat. He repeated, however, his assertion, that the boasted increase of trade on the Worcester Canal was the result of peculiar circumstances; and he
784
contended that houses should bring 300 years' purchase, rather than 100 in a situation like the one alluded to. He also denied that four-wheeled carriages had increased in the way the right hon. Baronet supposed; for it would be found a great many of them were mere pony chaises.—Petition to be printed.

BILL FOR REMOVAL OF JEWISH DISABILITIES.
Mr. Robert Grantsaid, before the House went into a consideration of the Bill thus designated, the second reading of which stood for that evening, he would take leave to present some Petitions, which he considered entitled to the attention of the House. The Solicitor General had, in the early part of the evening, referred to a petition from a person named Levy, in which he stated the Jewish people in this country to be indifferent to the result of the application now made to Parliament in their behalf, and to feel no desire for a relief from the disabilities under which they laboured. The petition he now presented was signed in a very short period of time by 592 of the Jews resident in London, comprising among them most of those who were distinguished by their wealth, their respectability, and their attachment to their religion; and they, in the strongest manner, implored the House to remove those disabilities which Mr. Levy took it on himself to declare were with them an object of indifference. He thought that this testimony was a sufficient answer to all statements on that point. He had another Petition to present from a Priest of the Jewish persuasion, living in Huntingdonshire. This gentleman placed the question on prophetical grounds; but whatever difference of opinion there might be on that question, he conceived that the petitioner's deductions would be found to be sounder than those of his opponents, inasmuch as he contended for humanity and good feeling in opposition to bigotry and exclusion. He had also a Petition in favour of the Jews to present from Mr. Robert Owen, a highly respectable individual, well known to many of the Members of that House.
Sir John Wrottesleysaid, it was not to be supposed that an humble individual such as he was could expect to obtain a hearing in the course of a debate so important as that about to take place; he should take that opportunity therefore to

785
state the extent to which he was disposed to support the Bill. He confessed, then, that he could not see the slightest objection to grant the Jews all that they required, except the permission to sit in that House. If the House were a lull and fair representative of the people he should have no objection to the Jews offering themselves as candidates to the electors; but when it was notorious that scats in that House were to be had to any extent for money, he could not consent to allow any persons to become Members who were not also Christians.
Petitions laid on the Table.
Mr. R. Grant, in moving the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Jews' Relief Bill, said, that it was unnecessary for him to reply to the objection of the hon. Baronet at that time. An assent to the second reading of the Bill for the Relief of the Jews did not pledge any Member to the details of the measure. It merely declared that they thought the Jews should be relieved, and left all objections to the details to be taken in that subsequent stage, when they, with more propriety, came under consideration. The hon. Member then moved that the Bill be now read a second time.
General Gascoynedeclared his determination to oppose the Bill if it proposed to confer on the Jews the privileges already granted to the Roman Catholics. The Constitution was a Protestant Constitution, and it was necessary for its support and protection that the institutions which made it so should be maintained. If any man had a few years ago asserted that, in the course of two Sessions, that House would repeal the Test and Corporation Acts—remove all the political disabilities of the Roman Catholics—and then entertain the question of relieving the Jews—he apprehended that his friends would have thought him a person it was necessary to keep a tight look after. For his part, he entertained no very favourable opinion of religious liberty. He thought it was little better than a mere union of sects. He could not for his life understand how any man who opposed the admission of the Catholics could vote for the relief of the Jews. The Catholics, indeed, had some claims to that which was conceded them. They possessed considerable property, an immense population, and they professed the religion once held by our ancestors. It was
786
true the palings of the Constitution had been broken down; but he entreated them not to make it altogether a waste spot. It was said, that the opinions of the Jews were not represented in Parliament. He believed they amounted to some forty or fifty thousand, and in the present state of the representation, he conceived the smallest unit to be sufficient for their share of that representation. He agreed with those who conceived the state of the representation to present an objection to the admission of the Jews to that House. These deformities of the Constitution were not to be overlooked in considering the propriety of making concessions. There was a spirit of innovation abroad in religious matters, as well as in commercial, and the friends of the one were the supporters of the other. The hon. and learned Gentleman (the member for Knaresborough) had declared, on a former occasion, in a debate on this subject, that "you ought to do unto others as you would that others should do unto you." Now, he would ask, if the Jews had the power to grant the Protestants what they now asked from them, what would they have obtained? The history of the Jews at all times showed that they were not very tolerant to those opposed to them in religious opinions. He called upon the House to unite with him in rejecting the measure, and he should move as an amend-men, "that it be read a second time that day six months."
Lord Belgraveexpressed his sorrow at being obliged on this occasion to differ from many hon. Members whom he was accustomed to agree with in public and private. He felt it his bounden duty, however, to oppose the measure, and in doing so he did not think he was departing from the principles he had professed upon a former occasion, because he considered a man might hold the most liberal sentiments in general and support the claims of the Roman Catholics, and yet adopt a different course in respect to the Bill now before the House; for he believed that those claims were founded on justice, reason, and truth—he considered that the Roman Catholics had clearly shown that the privileges they demanded would not be abused; and he felt that it was but fair to concede advantages to those who had never flinched from the support of the State. Now, there were two points on which he objected to the measure in. favour

787
of the Jews. First, they were a distinct nation; secondly, they were, he would not say by reason, but through the medium of their religion, disqualified for political privileges. Jews were scattered over almost all the countries of Europe and of the East, but they were amalgamated with the people of none. It was impossible then, he contended, that a Jew could ever be considered an Englishman, or love our native land as, he thanked God, an Englishman was wont to do. Was the Jew, he asked, to be considered an Englishman because he bought a coat in Monmouth-street, or negociated a loan upon the Stock Exchange for the benefit of this country, or that country, or any other country, provided it only squared with his own interest? Or was there the slightest reason for presuming that in his speculations he would give any decided preference to the interests of England? No; the fact was, no man could be an Englishman so long as he remained a Jew. In answer to the argument founded upon the wealth of these people conferring a degree of power upon them which might be dangerous if not secured in favour of the State, he contended, that by advancing them to a higher degree of power, the evil would only be increased, since the tie which connected them to the country could not be made binding, and the opes irritamentum malorum could only be used with additional effect. Besides, the Jew, so long as he continued truly such, could never feel himself bound up in the fortunes of a country in which he only considered himself a sojourner. He always comforted himself, under all circumstances of degradation, with the lively hope, that though despised on earth, he would not be an outcast on high, and that one day he should return to the land where his fathers had dwelt, and where his children should dwell for ever. And feeling and believing as they did, he asked if it were possible that Jews could love this land, in which they were permitted to dwell, as Englishmen did, to whom it was endeared by the ties of blood and old associations, and the memory of so many proud historic deeds? Could the bosom of the Jew thrill with interest at the mention of those glorious names, "familiar in our mouths as household words?" or could he dwell with delight upon the recollection of the achievements of our forefathers? No; he looked with an
788
incessant and undivided regard to the history of another land—he was the patriot of another soil, all his hopes and wishes turned towards it; and his heroes were the inhabitants of another country, and it was upon their glories he reflected with confidence—it was to them his memory reverted with delight. This divided interest, therefore, he maintained, incapacitated the British Jew from executing the duties he would be called upon to perform as one enjoying the full privileges of an Englishman. The Constitution was chiefly supported by that love of country which pervaded every English bosom, and anything that clogged that feeling must be deleterious.
Lord Darlingtonsaid, that although a friend to liberty in general, and to parliamentary reform, he should oppose this Motion, as he considered it uncalled-for. He did not see that it could be advocated as necessary, either upon grounds of justice or state policy; and therefore, although unwillingly, he must raise his voice against it, now that the measure was fully before the House; it was plain that a stress was specifically laid by the mover of this Bill, upon the necessity of admiting Jews into Parliament. He objected to such a doctrine:—first, because the admission was uncalled-for by any necessity of doing justice, or by reasons of state policy; secondly, because, as professors of the religion of Christ, the Legislature ought never to admit unbelievers to have any control or management of Christian institutions. Upon the non-necessity of the measure, and on that account alone, if there were no other, the House ought not to adopt it. He would quote, to support this view, the words of the right hon. member for Liverpool (Mr. Huskisson), when he opposed, two years before, the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts. The right hon. Gentleman, to whom he was then opposed, as he believed he was now opposed to him, gave reasons for voting against the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts which appeared peculiarly applicable to the present Bill. His words, as reported, were these. "He doubted whether the motion was calculated or directed to remove, or to repress any urgent grievance. If an oppressive grievance existed, if a wrong of some kind or other were committed, would they have failed to remonstrate against the continuance of the system. The fact could not

789
be so, for during a long period of forty years the parties most interested had preserved a total silence. Looking at the system altogether, it was impossible to separate it from the results which had followed in its train; it was impossible, in regarding the system, not to perceive the connexion between it and the strength and security of the empire at large. The strength, and security, and prosperity of the empire mainly depend on the present system."* With regard to his second objection he knew that he had the opinions of men of great talents against him, who saw no weight in the objection that, as composed of professors of Christianity, the Legislature ought not to admit Jews to the possession of power which gave them the means of controlling our Christian institutions. That was not, however, a sufficient reason with him to depart from the opinion he had formed on this subject. With regard to the question of expediency, he drew this distinction—when he found that so much had been already given, and when he heard it complained of that so much was yet withheld, when he heard the greatest lovers of monarchy declare that they did not feel the necessity for us to consider the government as a Christian government, adopting the principles of Christianity in all its institutions, it was high time to pause in the career of concession. As long, therefore, as concession could be made to toleration preserving the principles of Christianity as that of the Government, he was willing to concede; but when he found that concession involved the denial of the necessity of our remaining a Christian people, he was bound to stop. That was the distinction he made. He was willing to concede every political franchise to Christians, but he would stop when concession exposed him to the risk of seeing Christianity itself denied. He was astonished at the comparison which had been drawn between the situation of the Roman Catholic and that of the Jew; it was one in which he could not acquiesce. The Roman Catholics were allied to us in all our relations in life, and in some of the proudest of our historical recollections; they were united to us by ties which inspired affection and gratitude; their faith had the same source as our own, the differences
* Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, Volume XVIII. New Series, page 729.
790
between us being merely ritual. But it was said, the Jews had also strong claims upon us from their connexion with the Old Testament, and the preservation by them of the earliest records of Christianity. There was nothing, however, in that assertion to outweigh the objections which he felt, on other grounds to their having political power in a Christian community. He must oppose the Bill, therefore, notwithstanding a warning he had received from a friend he met in the street the other day, who asked him, if he voted against this measure, how he could ever hope to borrow money? But he replied, that the Jew would be just as ready to lend him money as before, since it was for his own sake, and not for that of the borrower, that he afforded the accommodation; and he then quoted the passage in the Merchant of Venice, in which, Shy lock says—
"Fair Sir, you spat on me, on Wednesday last;
You spurned me such a day; another time
You call'd me dote;"—and so on.
But Antonio replies—
"I am as like to call thee so again,
To spit on thee again, to spurn thee too.
If thou wilt lend this money, lend it not
As to thy friends (for when did friendship take
A breed of barren metal of his friend?)
But lend it rather to thine enemy;
Who, if he break, thou may'st with better face
Exact the penalty."
In conclusion, he never could give his permission that Turk, Jew, or Infidel should be made a Member of this House.
Mr. Mildmaysaid, that unfortunately on this subject his mind was not in unison with the opinions of his constituents. Still, however, he should not abandon principle for interest; for if he did, he was well aware that he should not only inflict pain on himself, but that mode of conciliating the good will of his constituents would occasion him to lose their respect. He should therefore give his support to this measure. It was insinuated that those who favoured the measure now before the House, wished to overturn the Constitution. He yielded to no man in a wish to support and maintain the Church of England in all its purity; for he believed that in doing so he should best contribute to the welfare of the people in this world, and should most truly promote their happiness in the next. He was anxious to discover a rag, a scrap of an argument—nay, even a pretence for an argument against this measure; but, so help him Heaven, be had not been able to do

791
so. It had been said, we could not amalgamate with them. Why, we had amalgamated with the Prussian, the Russian, and the Turk; and these were neither Russians nor Turks, but fellow-subjects, with one common interest with ourselves. He knew that some persons supposed that the Jews hated the country, and were influenced by a feeling inimical to the Constitution. He denied that such was the fact. But if it were true, what he would ask, was the cause? The answer was, the Constitution itself. It treated their intentions with scorn—it cooled their friends—it heated their enemies, and then the makers and supporters of this Constitution turned round, with an accusation that they pursued their own interests against those of others. The gallant General had spoken of our institutions, as if they always had been, and always were to remain unaltered. What would have been the case if such had always been the principles on which our ancestors had acted? We should now have been a nation of slaves. The noble Lord near him had supposed that the Jews never could and never would amalgamate with their fellow-subjects; but for himself, he could see no reason for entertaining such an opinion, and he looked forward with confidence to the happy results of this measure.
Lord Belgraveexplained, that his objection to the Jews was, that they were scattered over the face of the earth, united to each other, and destitute of those local attachments which constituted the patriotism of other people.
Sir E. Deeringsaw no danger in admitting Jews to the right of practising in all professions, and even of enjoying seats in corporate bodies, and filling corporate offices, but he should ever be against seeing them take their seats within that House. How was it possible that the two religions of Jews and Christians could ever be in accord with each other, when the object of the professors of the one was, to trample on the divine Author of the other? It had been represented by some hon. Members, that the Jews were, and always had been, the persecuted race, and never had been the persecutors. He wished to remind such Gentlemen that for the last eighteen centuries the Jews had not been in the possession of power, and when they did possess it, he would venture to assert that no sect had ever suffered so much from another as the Christians had suffered
792
from them. He urged the House not to be led away by the love of innovation, and not to pass a measure which he feared would be pregnant with mischief to the best interests of this country.
Sir Robert Wilsonmeant to give the measure his most cordial support. He saw no danger in it, nor could he well conceive what objections could be made to it. It was said, that the Jews of different countries would not amalgamate with the natives of the countries in which they resided. Was that statement true? Did not the noble Lord know that the Jews, who were admitted to the possession of rights, liberties, and privileges in France and the Netherlands were as distinguished and useful members of the community as any others? He would ask whether this country was to be exclusively Christian [Hear, hear, hear! from all sides of the House]? He thought the answer, which that cheer implied, was not an opinion entertained by any other individuals than those who expressed it so loudly at that moment, and whose feelings sometimes too much influenced their better judgment. A noble Lord had asked in a manner unworthy of the subject, whether a Jew was to be made an Englishman merely because he purchased old clothes in Monmouth-street? That was not the Jew's ground of claim. It was because he was a good subject that he claimed to have all the rights and privileges of one. He believed he might appeal to his right hon. friend opposite (Sir R. Peel), whether the Jew was more guilty than others of the crimes punished by our laws. He had been asked whether he would wish to see Jews, Unitarians, and Christians in that House? and he at once answered, Yes, for he saw one Member of the Unitarian profession sitting before him—than whose character none was more justly distinguished for kindness, humanity, generosity, and justice, and whose vote was always given in favour of freedom, and with a view to further the best interests and happiness of mankind. There was one point to which he wished particularly to refer. The Jews voted at elections in Southwark—he had been told that their doing so depended on the good nature of the other electors, who might, if they pleased, prevent their voting, by putting certain oaths to them; now, he must say, that such a state of things ought not to continue. In his opinion, no State had a right to proscribe any religion, provided

793
that religion was not destructive of the laws of morality, and did not outrage the customs of the country. Such was not the state of the Jewish religion, and the followers of it ought not to be proscribed. He was, perhaps, acquainted with more Jews than most other members of that House. He had seen them in all foreign countries, especially in France and the Netherlands; and he had found them, though suffering from jealousies and oppressions, generous, hospitable, and kind, and always disposed to show the greatest gratitude for benefits received. In his opinion, there was no class more deserving of favour, and of the concession of rights, than the Jews. He would remind the House, that there was one man of the Jewish persuasion who was at the head of no fewer than twenty-seven British Charities, many of which were for the promotion of Christianity. Why? because his own religion was not a proselytizing religion; and he supported the promotion of the Christian religion because he felt it was one which might do much towards ameliorating the condition of those among whom it was to be introduced.—He was proud to be able to say, that he had his constituents' authority for supporting this bill; to which, as far as his own opinion went, he gave his most cordial assent.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, he was proud of the opportunity of supporting the measure. He supported it both on principle and sympathy. The time had but recently gone by, when the Catholics were assailed by clamours which he would refute that very evening by his conduct. They had been assailed by a cry, which might be very satisfactory to some Christians, who thought that no others were right in argument or good sense but themselves. The cry then raised was Protestant—now it was Christian. To persons who now raised that cry against this measure, he would say that they avoided or evaded the true principles of Christianity, which were liberality and charity. On the former occasion, these persons said that the Catholics were the advocates of bigotry. Who were the advocates of bigotry now? Christian charity, with such people, was a good thing to talk of, but when they came to the point they refused to put it in practice. Who were before the House now in the character of claimants for rights? They were not foreigners—they were not Poles—nor Russians—nor Turks—nor French-
794
men—they were men born in England—men entitled to hold property in England—to inherit property from their ancestors in England—in short, they were Englishmen. They were debarred from some of the privileges of Englishmen because they refused to take an oath of a particular kind, and therefore they were shut out of that House. They were excluded, as it was said, because the safety of our institutions demanded their exclusion. But the House might be asked whether it would admit the unbeliever? It did admit the Mahometan. The Mahometan might, perhaps, refuse the oath "on the faith of a Christian." Yes, that was true, the Mahometan might be considered excluded; but would they laugh at him now, when he asked them, what sanction had they against the admission of the Atheist or of the Deist? Against any man who did believe in a God, or professed a particular religion, they had a protection, but they had no check upon he man who had no religious faith. It was said that the Jews had sympathies elsewhere. In the same manner it had been said, that the Catholics had sympathies elsewhere. He did not mean to disavow, that he and they carried spiritual homage to another than the King of England; but his own Sovereign received his undivided political homage. So it was with the Jew:—he might still remember the traditionary home of his father—but he was obedient to our laws. Let them not, therefore, talk of the name of Christianity, when it was used to do evil instead of good. In such a case he scorned the name, he desired the substance. Christianity was charitable; charity was the precept of Jesus Christ, their Saviour, himself. He was charitable to all men, even to his murderers; he prayed even for them, saving—"Father, forgive them; they know not what they do." In France they had a Christian Legislature, and the Jews were ranked with the other citizens of the State. Perhaps it might be denied that the French Legislature was Christian; for one mark of a Christian Legislature they had not—they had not a Boroughmongering-system—they had not one Lord with ten retainers, who, after sitting with the Côté Gauche, went over just at the critical moment, to the Côté Droite, carrying his ten retainers with him. Certainly that was not the case in France; and yet, he imagined, notwithstanding its disadvantage in this respect, it might be said to

795
have a Christian Legislature. But both there and in the Netherlands, Jews were appointed Judges, Magistrates, and Legislators, and performed their duties in the most efficient and most honourable manner; and at the moment at which he was speaking, one of the Secretaries of the Sorbonne was a converted Jew. Conversion was prevented in this country by our system of laws. Affect to scorn a man for his opinions, or to deprive him of civil power on their account, and he became wedded to them more firmly than ever. Such had been the case with the Catholics, and such would be the case with the Jews, and with all other people in similar circumstances. They had been told that the same reasons did not hold for admitting the Jews as for admitting the Catholics, It was true, for there were more reasons against the admission of the Catholics than against that of the Jews. It was because the Catholics were so numerous that they ought not to have been admitted; for if their belief were dangerous to the State, their numbers only rendered it doubly dangerous. That was not the case with the Jews, whose numbers were insufficient to create the least degree of alarm. Then it was said that the Catholics were a proselytising race; that made them more dangerous still, though, perhaps, they could gain but few proselytes, for they could offer but few pecuniary advantages; and, as an hon. Member had said the other night, if the road to Heaven were not paved with gold, nobody would have taken the trouble to discover it. He should support the Bill on the universal principle of toleration, if that were not an improper word to be used on such an occasion—perhaps he ought to have said the principle of right. That right was not to be infringed either by an Inquisition which inflicted torture, as in Spain, or by laws which, as in England, imposed privation. Man had a right to inflict neither the one nor the other; Christianity had spread itself—not by the force of temporal power—not by the efforts of Christians—nor by the labour of Christian Legislatures—but by virtue of its own truth, and its mild and benevolent influence on the human heart. It had expanded itself, not only without the assistance of temporal power, but against the most formidable opposition; and where was the Christian that would tell him that the arm of God was short, and needed the aid of any of his
796
creatures? He recognized them not, they belonged not to his communion, since their doctrines would deprive him of the consolation of his existence—the hope of eternity. Christianity bade him do as he would be done by, and he only fulfilled that duty when he gave this Bill his most hearty support.
Mr. Trantsaid, he was disposed, on many grounds, not much to favour the Bill, and he could not be pleased to find it in the hands of the same hon. Member who presented a petition from Mr. Robert Owen, who, if not in plain terms, at least in an implied sense, signified that Christianity was an imposture. Let the present Motion be glossed over as it might, it went to repeal that which our ancestors enacted and stood by, and the Legislature was departing from the principles which gave it birth, when it abandoned that Christianity which was interwoven with the Constitution itself. He heard it stated, with some surprise, that in the present situation of this kingdom, the Jews should not be considered as Jews separate from the bulk of the people, but as Christians united with them. It was said, that if Christianity was the law of the land, the Jews who preferred the Scriptures which formed the basis of Christianity were equally professors of our religion, and members of our civil community; but he could never be convinced by such sophistry, and his conscience told him to disclaim that Jews were Christians in any sense or construction. He was persuaded that the opinion of the great mass of the people of this country was opposed to the measure, though he was told that the bankers and the merchants, and the traders, were in its favour. A few persons who were in a situation to be affected by a connection with Jews, might assert that opinion was strongly with them; but he knew the mass of the people too well to suppose them willing to desert the principles which gave birth to the Constitution and the liberty they enjoyed. In 1753 a partial Relief Bill for the Jews was brought in, but the very next Session the people called on the Parliament not to pass it. The people of England were, perhaps, not much disposed to be pleased with the measures which it passed last year; but though they might be reconciled to the admission of Roman Catholics and Protestant Dissenters to a community of political freedom, they were

797
not disposed to give up Christianity altogether. He did not understand the excess of liberality now exercised in favour of the Jews; and he would ask, were not the Jews of the present day the descendants of those who crucified our Saviour, and who said "let his blood be on us and our children?" He was sorry to introduce such topics, but the subject compelled him. He spoke as a Christian, who was anxious to preserve the religion of our Saviour—who took the words of the Holy Volume for his guide—who persecuted no man for his opinions—but who only sought to exclude him from interference with a religion by which he was excluded. He had no idea of admitting Jews to control the religion of Christ—men who had already trodden the cross under foot, and would do so again. The hon. and learned member for Clare might think that such opinions were confined to the ignorant and the stupid; but if he were acquainted with the people of this country, he would not say so: and he knew that they were participated in largely by the respectable and thinking portions of society. Having said thus much against the principle of the Bill, he would go a little into its details. Supposing the Jews were admitted to the House, every one knew, that as their Sabbath commenced on the Friday evening they could not effectually perform all the business of the country, and as to opening to them the highest honours of the law, he would ask, would it not be preposterous to see a Jew in the seat of justice, sitting on a case of blasphemy against the Christian religion. In fact, whichever way he viewed the subject, he found the admission of the Jews to civil power to be preposterous and dangerous; and he would never, by voting for them, desert the Established Church, the religion of his forefathers, and all that he, as an Englishman and a Christian, held dear. He would certainly support the Amendment.
Lord J. Russellwas surprised at the opposition this Bill had experienced, for neither in point of policy nor expediency did it demand the attention and opposition it had experienced. The admission of thirty or forty thousand Jews to the privileges of the Constitution could make but little difference in its chance of future existence; and when he heard hon. Members talk of danger to that Constitution, he could not but wonder in what that danger
798
consisted. He did not think that the Jews would be thus enabled to convert all the Christians to Judaism, or obtain such a degree of power as would overthrow the established religion of the country. In point of principle, however, the Bill was of great value, for it was founded upon the basis, fully recognized last year, that religious opinions ought not to interfere with political privileges. It had been once held to be the maxim of the Constitution, that none but persons attached to the Church of England should share the benefits of that Constitution—an intelligible and a plausible theory; but when once that maxim was abandoned,—when once it was agreed that persons who were not members of the Church of England might be members of the Legislature,—the particular tenets of a representative of the people became a matter of pure indifference. Roman Catholics and Unitarians were allowed to sit in Parliament, although the one considered the Church of England an apostacy, and the other a corruption. Both were admitted to political power, and by Acts of Parliament it was declared, that the Constitution was thereby exposed to no additional peril. Those, then, who would exclude Jews, argued on a false assumption, that none ought to be admitted to political power but those who were of the religion of the State. He maintained, on the contrary, that religion no longer came into question, when any man required to be admitted to the privileges of the Constitution. It had been decided, over and over again, by majorities of that House, that no man was objectionable on the ground of his religion, but only on the ground of wanting loyalty to the King, and fidelity to the State. The Jews had acquired property, bore their share of the burthens, and contributed to the exigencies of the nation. They payed the taxes and obeyed the laws, and the House ought to be glad to admit them as good and faithful subjects. Moreover, it ought never to be forgotten, that exclusion encouraged separation, and that if this Bill passed, the distance of separation would be gradually diminished, until both sides approached so nearly, that they could join hands in one common cause, for the good of their common country. He did not wonder to see the hon. Baronet, the member for Oxford adhere to the exclusion of the Jews, since it was the last hold of intolerance and persecu-

799
tion, and it could not be relinquished without a pang. Like Niobe, when she clung to the last of her unhappy offspring, the hon. Baronet might exclaim—
"—Unam minimamque relinque,
De multis minimam posco, clamavit, et unam."
The majorities who had recently supported the cause of civil and religious liberty must vote in favour of this Bill; if they did not, it would prove that the late concession to the Roman Catholics was extorted by fear, and that the right hon. Gentlemen opposite had granted political privileges, not because they believed in their hearts that they were deserved, but because they thought they could no longer be refused with safety.
Mr. G. Bankeswas understood to declare, that he had heard no satisfactory reasons, to induce him to consent to so new and inexpedient a measure. The hon. and learned member for Clare had said, that the arguments urged against the Catholic Relief Bill, were not suitable on this occasion. He thought so too, but he felt that the reverse of the proposition was equally true, and that the arguments which were used in favour of that Bill were not adapted to this measure. It had been said, that while the law excluded the Jew, it gave admission to the Deist or the Atheist; but he denied that such was the fact. Certainly an Atheist, who had the hardihood to despise all oaths, might take those prescribed by the House, and thus gain admission to the Table; but, in his opinion, there was a moral power in the House which would strip him of all influence, and reduce him to utter insignificance. It had been asked whether, after the Jews had acquired property and knowledge, it was fit to withhold from them political privileges? Mr. Burke and others had said that "the supreme is the legislative power," and for that supreme power they were not qualified as long as they continued enemies to Christianity. He had no idea of admitting Jews, who differed in principles from the very foundation of the law of the land, to a control over the legislative powers. In other states, in which the Jews were admitted to civil and political rights, the legislative power, which they were allowed to share, was not so extensive and comprehensive as it was in England. It was, in fact, rather administrative than legislative power they were allowed to share. When he considered that in the House of Commons,
800
every thing for the protection or the regulation of the Church originated, he could not think of admitting those to legislate who were opposed to Christianity itself. The hon. Gentleman concluded by saying he would give a decided negative to the Motion.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, that knowing the ability and power of argument which distinguished the hon. Gentleman who brought forward the Motion, and believing that his attempt would be crowned with success, he had come down with the intention of supporting him only by a silent vote; but he was tempted to break through that resolution by the speech of his gallant friend, the member for Liverpool, and by that of the noble Lord who had referred to him and to the petition which he had presented from Liverpool on this subject. His gallant and hon. friend had admitted that the petition was numerously and respectably signed; but he added, that several of the signatures were obtained under the influence of the Jews, and the noble Lord said, with regard to the petition of the bankers and merchants, that the Jews could dispose of the feelings of the trading classes of society as they pleased. In his opinion, these statements were much overcharged, and he could assure the House, that in Liverpool the Jews were retail dealers, and constituted a very small and uninfluential class. The sentiments in the petition were the genuine opinions of those who signed it, and they should be taken as the sentiments of the Christians of Liverpool on the subject—His hon. and gallant colleague said, he was an enemy to all innovation, and that our ancestors would never consent to innovation. His hon. friend had, indeed, confessed that the Roman Catholic religion was entitled to some favour, because it was an ancient religion; but he hoped his hon. friend would not consider the Jews less entitled than the Catholics to favour on the score of antiquity. And when he said that our ancestors were enemies to innovation, he seemed to have forgotten that they introduced a Reformation—that they produced a Revolution—and that they expelled a King because they suspected him of a design to destroy the then new religion of the country. The noble Lord had taunted him with a speech he had made some time since on the subject of the admission of the Protestant Dissenters to the State; but the noble Lord misunder-

801
stood the motive of his conduct at that period. It was not from a desire to exclude the Dissenters that he spoke, but from a dread that partial concession would injure the great and general measure of religious liberty, which was then in hand, and had been since accomplished. It was to be observed, however, that the arguments which were urged in favour of the Catholic and the Dissenters' relief did not here apply, for the present Bill was not, like them,—one of paramount importance, or of absolute necessity. He said so, abstractedly from the question of the injustice of withholding from others, rights to which they were, as common subjects of the State, entitled. And while he admitted, that although the necessity was not urgent in one sense, he maintained that the repeal should take place in another, as the exclusion of the Jews was the only exception remaining to the general toleration that was now the principle of the law. When this measure had passed, the Jews would be placed on the same footing in this country as in France and the Netherlands. The hon. member for Wexford, who had spoken so well that he hoped to hear him often speak, admitted the propriety of allowing the Jews access to all other stations, civil and military, but he would exclude them from seats in Parliament. Now, that was a sort of wisdom he did not understand. The hon. Member would give them the power of the sword, and the power of instructing youth, and he would make them, by his exclusion, the enemy of that legislature which it was necessary for the safety of the State that youth should be taught to reverence, and soldiers implicitly to obey. Something had also been said as to the manner in which his hon. friend had framed his measure. And it was true that it purported to be a relief to the Jews from all disabilities; it was to put them on the same footing as the Protestant Dissenters and the Roman Catholics. But did it follow, that were the House to go into committee it must adopt all that had been proposed by his hon. friend. He supported his hon. friend's views to their full extent in giving all the relief that he contemplated. If, however, the House went into a committee, and a proviso were introduced not to allow Jews the privilege of admission into Parliament, however undesirable and uncalled-for that proviso might be, yet still he was not one of those who would think that the
802
Bill ought not to be persevered in on account of that objection. Hon. Gentlemen might ask, why should he agree to this? But he would ask them, did they recollect the year 1812, when a bill was brought in to grant the Roman Catholics all that they had since obtained? That bill was read a first and second time. It went to a committee, and an amendment was then proposed to exclude them from sitting in Parliament, and on that amendment having been carried, the bill was, as he thought, very unwisely withdrawn. The better course would have been, for the friends of the measure to have taken what they could have got. If a proviso to the same effect were to be introduced now, he would deprecate and think it unwise; but, considering this Bill as a measure of justice and relief to all the parties that were suffering from having their rights withheld, he would still proceed to pass it. He therefore trusted, that the Bill would be allowed to be read a second time; although he would, in the committee, give his strenuous support to the Bill as it stood, yet he would not abandon it even were such a limitation introduced. It was most certain, as he had observed, that this Bill had attracted considerable notice; and they had been told that members would rue giving it their support when they returned to their constituents;—but he said he would support this, as he did the Roman Catholic Question, without reference to any other consideration than that which guided his decision on that Question. He would also tell his hon. and gallant colleague that he was not afraid of the disapprobation of his constituents on account of the vote he had given upon the Catholic Question, nor of the course he meant to pursue on the present Bill. Again, then, he would express a hope that the Bill might pass, and form the consummation of that course of liberality which, he trusted, would immortalize the present Parliament.
Sir Robert Peelspoke as follows. I shall endeavour, Sir, to condense into the shortest possible compass what I have to say on the present occasion. As I had not the advantage of being here on the former discussion, I hope the House will bear with me should I trouble them with any thing that they might have heard before. I must set out by saying, that I cannot support this Bill. I do not admit the principle of the Bill, nor can I help objecting to the mode in which it is sought

803
to establish that principle. The Bill professes to limit itself to giving relief from all civil disabilities to all the Jewish subjects of his Majesty; but that is not the sole object to which the Bill is limited. I will not say that it is a bill for unchristianising the Legislature, but I will say that one of the unavoidable consequences of this measure will be, that every one of the forms and ceremonies which give us assurance of Christianity must be abolished. I take it that it follows as a legitimate consequence of this measure—that every man, to whatever sect or persuasion he may belong, will be entitled to prescribe the form of affirmation by which he may give assurance to the State of his fidelity. The Session before the last we were called on to give our support to a measure for the relief of the Protestant Dissenters; and last Session we passed a bill for the relief of his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects; therefore it is said that we are bound, in consistency, to follow up those measures by adopting the present measure. I hear this with regret, because I hear it for the first time. In the discussions respecting either the Catholics or the Protestant Dissenters, nothing of the sort was ever intimated; it was never stated to us that because we admitted our fellow Christians to a participation of power, that therefore, as an unavoidable and necessary consequence, we were bound to admit to all the privileges of the Constitution men who reject Christianity altogether. Some most forcible appeals were made to us on the ground of the common Christianity of the parties applying for relief. In the speeches of Burke, and in his recorded sentiments, as contained in his writings, we learn that he rested his strongest arguments in favour of concession to the Roman Catholics, upon the Christianity of that body; so of Mr. Grattan, of Mr. Canning, and of all the great and eminent advocates of that cause; even my right hon. friend on my left, in pressing their claims upon the attention of the House last Session, observed, that "when serving with Protestants in the Army, they entered together the same breach, they fought together on the same field, reposed together in the same grave, and rested their hopes of future happiness upon the merits of a common Redeemer"—those appeals were forcibly made, and successfully made, for it was not to be denied that Protestants and Catholics admitted the same great
804
doctrines of Christianity. But if this Bill pass, though it may apparently be limited to the Jews, and though, confining our view solely to this Bill, it does not go beyond that class of men; yet we shall, if this be agreed to, have to pass other bills most objectionable in my views of the Constitution. It is perfectly obvious that if we pass this Bill, it follows as a necessary consequence, that every form of oath which requires a profession of the Christian faith must be abandoned. Now this is a most important alteration in the usages of this country. Before Catholics and Protestant Dissenters were excluded, there was still a necessity for all public functionaries to profess Christianity; from the earliest period a belief in Christianity was required as necessary to official appointments or to seats in Parliament. No person who rejected Christianity could obtain office; therefore, from the first, our Constitution was, to say the least of it, Christian. Here, then, we have an evident and palpable departure from the principles of the Constitution, as admitted and recognised in the earliest periods; and where is the urgency of this vast change? What is it that requires this departure from the first principles of our Constitution? What is the case made out respecting the Jews? It would seem—I take my information from a book which, I understand, is written by a very respectable Jew, and is considered a work of authority—that there are resident in the United Kingdom about 27,000 Jews, natural-born subjects of his Majesty, of whom 20,000 are resident in London, 7,000 Jews in the other parts of the kingdom; and for these 27,000 or 30,000 individuals I am invited to depart from the principle which has been acted on from the earliest period of the Constitution. I am told the Jew is degraded by his exclusion—he is not excluded in the same manner that the Catholic and the Dissenter were—he is not excluded by anything in the nature of a taunt upon his form or profession of faith. The Jew is excluded merely because the Legislature requires, as the great principle of civil government, that all persons admitted to office should acknowledge the fundamental truths of the Christian religion. The Jew is not a degraded subject of the State, he is rather regarded in the light of an alien—he is excluded because he will not amalgamate with us in any of his usages or habits—he is regarded as a foreigner. In the history of

805
the Jews, their domestic usages, their institutions respecting marriage, and in a variety of other points, we find enough to account for the prejudice which exists against them. We find them in the possession of political privileges in France, in the Netherlands, and in the United States of America—in the last during a period of forty years, and in the two former during the last fifteen years, and only two Jews have in that time been admitted to political offices [hear!]. I think I understand that cheer. I understand it to mean, that since so few have been admitted, there is no danger in admitting the English Jews to political power. Now the inference I draw from it is, that if the Jews expect to derive so little advantage from the removal of disabilities, the practical benefit to them must be very small; and for such a trifle are we to depart from what has formed for centuries one of the fundamental principles of the British Constitution? Docs the House suppose that the people of England are indifferent because no petitions have been laid upon the Table of this House? On the contrary, I will venture to affirm, that the sense of the people of England is opposed to concessions of this nature, and I will venture to predict that the result will prove that affirmation to be well founded. If the House is prepared to lay it down as a principle that Deists, Atheists, and other infidels may hold the highest offices of the State, and possess seats in the Legislature, then you must be prepared to revolt the feelings of the country. For fifteen years, in France and the Netherlands, have they been entitled to all privileges, and during forty years have they possessed those advantages in the United States; yet during the whole of those periods not one of them has obtained a seat in the Legislatures of those countries, only one has been appointed to a high situation at Amsterdam, and one has been made Mayor of New York; and that convinces me that the exclusion of Jews does not arise from their political incapacities, but from their own peculiar institutions and usages. So much for the principle of the measure. The mode in which it is proposed to carry it into effect I look upon as equally objectionable. Its advocates propose to abolish all disabilities on account of religious opinions. The hon. member for Clare would have every man allowed to worship God as he might think proper; but if the present Bill be passed, it will not be neces-
806
sary for a man to worship God at all. The Deist and the avowed Infidel are admitted into Parliament under this Bill. From its provisions this principle necessarily flows, that political power is, and ought to be, unconnected with religious belief—that, I take it, is a legitimate consequence of its enactment. Now, if that be intended, why not avow it at once and forever? Does any man in this House suppose that this is the last bill which will be passed upon this matter of religious freedom, as it is called? There are at the present moment three great classes of his Majesty's subjects eligible to high political office and to scats in Parliament; but they are all required to be Christians; these are the Protestant Dissenters, the Roman Catholics, and the members of the Church of England—and now we are called on to admit the Jews: but are there no Christians excluded? What becomes of the Quakers? Why is not a bill brought in for their admission also? [hear!] I again hail those cheers—if the Jew be admitted, there is not a doubt that the Quaker is equally well entitled. Why not one as well as the other? Are you afraid of the consequences? [No, no, no.] Observe the admission—if this Bill be allowed to pass, other bills, à fortiori, must pass. Is it wise then to disturb yearly the religious feelings of the people of this country by separate bills for the relief of the several classes of his Majesty's subjects from the disabilities which from the earliest period the Constitution imposed upon them. If the measure be right, establish it fully and for all, and let us not have a bill one year for one set of men, and another year for another. I know of no tenet of Quakerism which ought to exclude Quakers from the enjoyment of political power if the Jews are to be admitted. It is said that the relief of the Catholics placed the Jews in a worse situation than before—that the more the space was narrowed the greater was the suffering—to speak mathematically, the intensity of the suffering varied inversely with the space operated on. But, I repeat, that if the Jews are entitled to this relief, so are the Quakers—so are the Separatists. On these grounds, then, Sir, I am not prepared to admit the principle, and I object to the mode of giving effect to the Bill; and I confess I do so with much regret. There is nothing in the conduct of the Jews themselves which ought to create the slightest prejudice against them. The upper

807
classes of that people are eminent for charity and sympathy with the sufferings of their fellow men, and the lower classes are not marked by any vices beyond what is common amongst persons in that rank of life. I, therefore, cannot but feel the necessity of opposition as most painful; but there has been no case of practical oppression shewn, to call on us to give them relief. So far as landed estates are concerned, I see no objection to the Jews being empowered to hold them; my own opinion is, that they can do so already; but in that I, of course, submit to higher authority than my own; but my own opinion is, that it requires no new law to enable them to hold estates in land. At an early period, eleven learned Judges gave it as their opinion, that Jews, being native born, are capable of holding land. But if there be doubts on the subject, I shall not object to a bill to grant them relief. The late Lord Ellenborough contented himself with such a title as a Jew could make to land; he purchased an estate of Mr. Goldschmidt, and after that I think we need have little doubt that Jews may hold land and can make good titles. With respect to the present Bill, I think it cannot be so amended as to meet my views, and therefore I say, unhesitatingly, that I must oppose it: foreseeing its consequences, I cannot give it my support.
Mr. Broughamsaid, that he differed altogether from the right hon. Gentleman, although he admitted that, taking the views he did, they were argued with fairness. He had not appealed to violence or to passion—he had not, like one Member, reminded us that these people were the descendants of those who had crucified our Saviour—nor, like another, that they practised usurious dealing—nor like another, the gallant General, who had certainly given a novel and extraordinary gloss on Christianity—namely, that of altering the command "Do ye unto others as ye would they should do unto you," into this, "Do ye unto others as they would do unto you." This was an innovation, in the nineteenth century of the Christian era, which would certainly lead to a most wonderful alteration in the whole system of the Christian dispensation. He begged pardon; he did not ascribe these words to his hon. friend, he only took the liberty of putting the gallant General's argument in his own words. In the course of the debate a number of
808
facts had been referred to, and the commentators here had been, like most other commentators, full of a desire to show their own lore. One hon. Gentleman said, he referred to history, and asked, "Do you recollect how the Jews always used power when they had it," and having frightened the House by his historical recollections, he demanded the continued exclusion of the Jews on the new principles of Christianity of the gallant General. He must confess with regret, that he had never known the House less distinguished for calmness of deliberation—for the good sense of its views, or for the real and genuine principles of Christian charity, than he had observed this night, and on the present occasion, in the loud and general—he would not say clamorous—reception of some of the worst appeals ever made to the passions. These were received, one after the other, with zeal, and he might say, cordiality, from which he was inclined to hope that their import could not be understood. The right hon. Secretary did not, it was true, appeal to such passions, nor to such unfair arguments as those who were in opposition to toleration on Christian principles had that night used. But though approving of the right hon. Gentleman's mode of arguing, he did not approve of his argument. The right hon. Gentleman had said, that this Bill was one intended for the first time to take away Christianity as a necessary qualification for political power, and that ever since Parliament had existence there were tests to prove the Christianity of its Members, and effect the exclusion of all who were not Christians. But was that the fact? In his view neither history nor law showed that their deliberations were to be confined to Christian Members, or that the Legislature ever contemplated purging the House of either Jew, Turk, or Heathen. There was no such principle laid down in the law: no one who had any acquaintance with history—no one who had ever read the first Act of Parliament on the subject, could fail at once to see, that the reason of the test then was because it was the only means of having the explicit affirmation of a sincere belief in certain dogmas. He was unwilling to revert to two great legislative measures which had lately received the sanction of that House. He abstained from any argument which could be deduced from thence, with his eyes open, because

809
it would but give rise to invidious retrospection. He did not wish to put this measure upon the footing of State necessity, nor of sound policy; he put it on the other, but not lower ground; for he put it as a case of justice, to an assembly of just men. When he said he put it on the footing of justice, and justice alone—when he said the Jews were small in number though highly respected by all who had any dealings with them—when he added, that they came not before that House, urgent from their influence, imperative or overawing from conscious power—that they came unaccompanied with the incitements of faction—the intemperance of demagogues—the threatening of associations;—but armed alone in the propriety and justice of their cause, and that they appealed to their rectitude as men, and to the kindly charitableness of Christianity, when he said this, did he place their cause upon a plea that would not find a response in the heart of every honest, honourable, and religious man in that House? And after all, what was the good derived from the words "on the true faith of a Christian," as a protection against those who had no faith of any kind. They might exclude an honest man from the House, a dishonest man they would not reject. He begged the House to consider seriously that men were not excluded from that House because they might be Quakers or Jews, heathens, infidels, or blasphemers, but because they happened to be devoid of that quintessence of Heathenrie—hypocrisy! Let the Jew but come here and pledge himself to the contents of that oath by which he is excluded, and he will be at once received with open arms by that chorus of Christians whom he had heard that night cheer, and roar, and howl forth their applause of the most antichristian doctrines and feelings that had ever been uttered in a civilised country. But his hon. and learned friend, the Cursitor Baron (Mr. G. Bankes), would say, "Oh, but a man under such circumstances, could have no weight." Just so. But let them look a little to example, and sec if that defence was borne out. Did the Gentlemen on the other side ever hear of the celebrated Mr. Gibbon's having sat in that House—that, at a time when he was notoriously an opponent of Christianity, he came up to that Table and took the entire array of
810
oaths—of Abjuration and against Tran-substantiation, &c. with all the gravity of a Christian? And yet he held, at that very time, the office of a Lord of Trade, and, he would warrant, received its salary just as punctual as the staunchest Churchman. He did not, to be sure, exercise much authority in the House—[hear, hear from Mr. Bankes]. He knew his hon. friend would say so—[laughter]. Gibbon's paganism was a little too evident, and a consciousness of its having been so, hindered him from exercising that influence which his talents and learning would have entitled him to. He never spoke—he had a weight, a dead weight, upon him! He was afraid he should hear Spoke! Spoke! Infidel! Infidel! Atheist! and other equally inharmonious sounds breaking on him from every side of the House. But there was a still stronger case. Did hon. Gentlemen on the other side, did his hon. friend, the Cursitor Baron, ever hear of Henry St. John Lord Viscount Bolingbroke? He, too, was a noted infidel!—a scoffer at religion, he had attacked Christianity by his writings and in his conversation, but in that House he had taken the prescribed oaths, and had abjured, with all the zeal of true faith, the requisite dogmas. Yet he was one of the most powerful orators and influential Ministers that had ever sat in that House. The severest judges, the most acute critics, and among others, a zealous Churchman of that day gave an account of his eloquence which made it appear almost superhuman. The House would recollect an anecdote on this head of Mr. Pitt, who, being in company with certain friends, one day, each of whom was expressing a particular wish; one said, he should like to see the lost books of Livy; another, a specimen of a certain ancient comedy. Mr. Pitt said, that what he should wish to see was a speech of Lord Bolingbroke; such was his opinion of that noble infidel's extraordinary eloquence. No man ever exerted a greater power over Parliament, and he was not thought unworthy to be Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, an office which he filled with as much effect even as his successor, Lord Aberdeen; producing state papers worthy of his spoken eloquence, and quite as much admired in the Cabinets of Europe as the effusions of that noble orator, though he was not so good a Christian by ten thousand degrees. But as to weight in Council,

811
and influence in Foreign Courts, he should only be laughing at Lord Aberdeen, if, in sober truth, he did not declare there could be no possible comparison established between them. Well, then, what became of his learned friend's argument, that oaths kept infidels out of the House; or if they were so vile as to take the oaths and come there, destroyed all their influence? But then, said the right hon. Gentleman, if you admit the Jews you must go further. He could scarcely suppose such an argument could be maintained between himself and the right hon. Gentleman, if they had to discuss the question, not in opposition and debate, but across a friendly table. To be sure, he could suppose one of the party to throw up his hands and exclaim, "If you do this, Lord bless you! the very next thing you must do will be—what? to admit the Quakers?" Let them—let the Quakers be admitted, and God speed them! he should exclaim. And where, he would ask, was a sect more amiable, more honest—more deserving the sympathy of honourable men? No man knew this better than the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who had had much intercourse with them. He begged the House to recollect, when judging the Quaker and the Jew, those important words, "Swear not at all! neither by Heaven, for it is God's throne; nor by the earth, for it is his footstool; neither by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King." How, after that, men could think well of the habit of taking oaths, he (Mr. Brougham) could not comprehend. He begged to remind hon. Gentlemen of this text, in order that they might feel that the doubts of others on this subject were not without solid foundation. But while we excluded the Jews so pertinaciously from this House, how did they stand in other respects? A Jew could hold an advowson, and present to it a minister. What became, in that case of his hostility to Christianity? A vestry could be composed of Jews, and he had the authority of Lord Eldon for saying, could elect the Clergyman who should expound the doctrines of Christianity. A Jew could be a Juryman—Jews were constantly seen to perform that important office in our Courts, and with as much fidelity and impartiality as Christians, and how it could be more injurious for them to be one out of 600 in making laws than one out of twelve in administering them was what his understanding
812
could not appreciate. They were allowed to perform amongst us all the duties of citizens, they would dispose of parish funds, and of the lives of their countrymen; they could appoint ministers of the Church and hold large landed estates, performing all the duties of landlords, and they were still to be excluded from any influence in making those laws they were called on to administer. Why there should be such objection in this country to acknowledge all the rights of the Jews, when they were fully admitted to all privileges in the British Colonies, as well as in foreign States, was also beyond his understanding. He was not now alluding to the Jamaica Jew Bill (though he could perceive that the Chancellor of the Exchequer apprehended that he was), for he well knew that that had not yet received the Royal assent, but he was referring to an Act passed in the good old orthodox times—to an Act passed in the 13th of George 2nd, which enacted, that every person who had resided seven years in a British colony should become ipso facto naturalized, and entitled to all colonial privileges; and it was particularly enacted by the Statute, that such words "as on the true faith of a Christian" should be omitted if it were required by the religious persuasion of a person to obtain his rights. The hon. Baronet who had addressed the House that night, for the first time, and whom the House had heard with much pleasure, had put the question on the ground that it was a religious question; but this he distinctly denied. It was one of civil policy only; and on this head he would refer them to Dr. Paley, the firm and able friend of Christianity; and who, to the disgrace of the leading men of the day, was allowed to descend unmitred to the grave. That author denied that this was a religious question, for there was no such thing as a political connexion between the Church and the State; and said that, whether the former officiated as the handmaid or the ally of the State, the union was equally inconsistent with the principles of religion and sound policy, and could do nothing but spoil the one and corrupt the other. And the same authority, speaking on the subject of tests, observed, that they ought only to be applied for the purpose of detecting civil delinquency. They excluded Popery—not as Popery, but for its connection with despotism and the party of the Jacobites; and if ever

813
the Catholics should get rid of this connection, it would be an injustice to them to keep them out of civil offices one day longer. It was stated, that the Jews were foreigners—were connected with another law—were patriots of another soil, and therefore, they ought to be excluded; but the noble Lord who made this objection must be aware, that the Jews who asked for relief, were born within the King's allegiance, and were the King's subjects. But were those who made this objection aware—was the House aware, that the son of a foreigner, born in this country, though he might be the son of a Moscovite, or the son of one of Buonaparte's Generals, at the period of his highest power—was the House aware that the son of a foreigner, born in this country, might fill the highest offices of the Government—might be a Secretary of State, the Lord Chancellor, or the Archbishop of Canterbury, and might carry his allegiance and the homage of his feelings to the Throne of his parent's foreign Sovereign? But because all nations conspired to reject the Jews, would they, at the end of seventeen centuries' persecution of this race, continue to exclude them, and taunt them, as the reason for the exclusion, with having no country and no home, and being no nation? One Gentleman had said, that the Apostate Julian had interfered with the decrees of Divine Providence, and had tried to stop their dispersion, and build up their temple again; and he had called upon the House not to imitate the example of Julian, and obstruct the decrees of Divine Providence. But he did not ask them to obstruct the decrees of Divine Providence. He was not afraid of their doing so—that decree must be fulfilled—must be made good, which promised that the Jews should be scattered over the earth; but that was a demand on all the nations among whom they lived to do them justice. He called on the House to remember the Divine law, given by Him for the persecution of whom it was decreed, that they should be dispersed over all the earth, and remembering them, to do unto others as they would be done unto, to shew justice, and love mercy, and in following these precepts, to believe that they were promoting, not obstructing the decrees of Divine Providence. [Cheers and calls for "Question."] After some time, the hon. Member said, if those Gentlemen who were so ready to call for the question would take an opportunity of
814
expressing their sentiments at greater length, if they would signify them by articulate sounds, and not decide all questions by a division, and by the weight of their numbers—the House, he was sure, would hear them with greater pleasure than it heard that cry which was to settle all things without any knowledge, without any reason, without any acquaintance with the subject, with nothing to recommend their decision but the majority of votes. He would then come to the point on which they were all agreed, for he was as much fatigued with addressing them as they were with hearing him; and, to come to that point, then, on which they were all agreed: which was, that the debate should be ended—he would conclude by stating, simply and solemnly, that in voting for the second reading of the Bill, he did not pledge himself to give any relief beyond what was contained in it—and it only professed to extend relief to his Majesty's Jewish subjects. He had stated frankly his opinion of the extent to which he was ready to go. Some hon. Members differed from him as to the extent, but they were all agreed in one thing. The hon. member for Newark, who had led the opposition against the Bill, though he had not spoken that evening; and certainly the right hon. Secretary—all the opponents of the Bill, agreed that they would give relief to the Jews, short of admitting them to sit in Parliament and possess the Elective Franchise; and if they were all agreed on the general principle, would it not be unreasonable and unjust to reject the whole nine-tenths for the sake of the one-tenth they did not approve of? He would conclude by declaring, that in voting for the second reading, he pledged himself to nothing more than that the Bill should go to a committee.
Mr. Percevalrose to address the House amidst loud calls of "Question;" but, after an ineffectual attempt to make himself heard, he resumed his seat.—We understood the hon. Member to be desirous of stating his reasons for opposing the measure.
The House divided,—For the Second Reading 165; Against it, 228—Majority against the Bill 63.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Lord DE DUNSTAN-VILLE, from Falmouth, praying the removal of the Civil Disabilities affecting the Jews:—By the Earl of DARNLEY, a similar Petition, from the Jews of Canterbury. By the Earl of RADNOR, from a Reform Society, against the East Retford Disfranchisement Bill, and in favour of a general Reform in Parliament. By Lord ROLLE, against the Punishment of Death for Forgery, from the Inhabitants of Teignmouth (Devonshire); and from Crediton, in the same County. By the Earl of RADNOR, from an Association for the Inmate of, Knowledge, in favour of Mr.

759
Owen'a System. By Lord DYNEVOR, from Carmarthen, and another place, against any Alteration in the Welsh Judicature. By the Earl of WESTMORLAND, from the Newspaper Proprietors of Belfast, against the additional Duty of Stamps on Irish Newspapers and Advertisements; and from certain Inhabitants of that Town:—-By the Earl of GLENGALL, to the same effect, from the Letter-press Printers of Clonmel. By the Duke of RICHMOND, from an Individual, in favour of extending Poor-laws to Ireland. By the Duke of BEAUFORT, from Monmouth, against the renewal of the East India Company's Charter. By Viscount CLIFDEN, from Parishes in Ireland, against the Tithe-laws. By the Bishop of BATH and WELLS, from Frome Selwood, Somersetshire, for the Abolition of Slavery:—By Lord FAVERSHAM, from a Parish in Yorkshire, with a similar prayer. By the Earl of DARNLEY, from Parishes in the County of Meath, against the proposed increase of Duty on British Corn Spirits:—By the Earl of GLENGALL, from Carrick-on-Suir, with a similar prayer.
The Examination of Witnesses in support of the East Retford Disfranchisement Bill was proceeded with on the Motion of the Marquis of SALISBURY. Several Witnesses proved they had received packages, containing twenty Guineas each, subsequently to the Elections of 1812, 1816, &c., but by whom the Money was delivered they were ignorant.